It explains how the temperatures are taken, and offers explanations why it is not a straight climb up in temperature, and that there are other influences as well. But it is pretty clear there has been a consistent increase in temperature over the past 100+ years.

And until now the taxpayer has been given no choice - something that I call ''taxation without representation'' - a phrase that should have some reasonance in the USA, should it not?

The taxpayer in the US has very little representation. Only if you can contribute enough to a politicians campaign do you have representation. That is why I refer to US government as being the best that money can buy.

As for the instrumental record, digital instruments in wide use since 1986, record higher than the old instruments, and modern instrumentation sighting positions often suffer from urban heat island effects. (this of course creates an artificial warming trend). Establishing long term trends means that the old (or new) data must be re-calibrated or adjusted. Climatologists call this “homogenization “. One might call it manipulating the data to satisfy “confirmation bias” as well. It is actually a big mess now. Nobody knows what the correct calibration should be. In Australia, for example, the modern temperature record shows it was actually hotter during the period from 1910 to 1940 than it is now. So they went and adjusted the pre 1980 temps down to show a warming trend. Skeptics called foul of course. The best data available is the satellite data, but it only goes back to 1979.

Nobody has expressed views that climate should be static. It is always dynamic. Actually it was a lot warmer during the medieval time period than it is now.

Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Garyt wrote:The taxpayer in the US has very little representation. Only if you can contribute enough to a politicians campaign do you have representation. That is why I refer to US government as being the best that money can buy.

This is part of the connection I thought you would make with the Fabians. There were two schools of thought on how to establish world wide communism. One was by revolution of the working class. The other, as proposed by the Fabians was a gradual creep, mainly through taxation. So instead of revolution, they put forth the establishment of Gov programs, that while not being quite socialism, placed a greater and greater tax burden on the people and laid the foundation of a welfare state. Taxation of income is tantamount to confiscating property, so it satisfies one of Marx's goals of the confiscation of private property and private capital. A progressive income tax (one of Marx's planks) was easy enough to sell. As people become dependent upon transfer payments it was hoped it would become a never ending spiral to the point that eventually everybody (of all classes) had to pay all they had into the Gov, and receive back "to each according to their needs." Unfortunately this diabolical scheme is succeeding more and more. You can't opt out. You have lost your liberty and any representation. It is a form of tyranny.

Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

I understand where you are coming from philosophicaly, but it really does not match the facts about tax rates.

And I think you know what I am going to say, i.e. I think you are familiar with the history of fed tax rates.

The standard push from the right seems to be to state what you have stated about tyranny and taxes, and then blame this upon democrats in particular, and the Obama administration specifically. The problem I see with this theory is that taxes are now some of the lowest we have ever seen.

I could understand if we had a 94% top end bracket in the 50's and 60's, or 70%+ as it was in the 70's. Heck, we are even a fair amount lower in tax rate than we were in the Reagan years.

Funny thing about all that - The US was most prosperous (for the majority of it's citizens at least, standard of living) during these times of higher top end tax brackets. was this coincidence or causation? Either way, the economy was strong in the 50's and 60's and the higher tax brackets did not destroy the economy as doom and gloom conservatives say it will.

Familiar with the MIDI distribution of wealth? a score of 90 indicates using a pie as representative of wealth that if we had a pie cut in 10 pieces, one person gets 9 pieces, the other 9 people split that last piece of pie among themselves.

The US scores a 90. Most of Europe and Industrialized Asian countries are in the 20-60 range, far more equally distributed.

Who else runs around a 90 score on MIDI like the US? Usually 3rd world countries, often military dictatorships.

You know all that talk of "Tyranny"? We had almost unchecked capitalism in the early 1900's. Corporations were free to enforce their own laws, higher mercenaries to break up strikes. I think unchecked Capitalism breeds tyranny, only that the tyrants are the leaders of the financial oligarchy.

I think companies hiring armed killers to attack workers because they refuse to work is far more tyrannical than anything we have seen under progressive dem leadership.

Gary, perhaps in your zeal you don't realize, that I feel your in some cases putting words in my (and others) mouth or implying that I must support a particular position, then you attack that position.

Anyway, regarding tax rates in the 50s and 60s: The top tax marginal tax rate went up to 91% for the 1%ers during 1944 under FDR. This structure remained in place when Eisenhower took over. It should be pointed out that nobody pays the marginal rate. The real rate paid is much lower because of deductions and loop holes. Eisenhower knowing this, convinced congress to restructure (open up) the loop holes. What he essentially did was left the top marginal rate high so a wealthy income earner would have to pay it if they did not re-invest their earnings in the private sector. (he was a general after all ) The capital gains tax was real low and the tax on interest income was actually 0% in practice. The real % income tax paid by very top income earners was only around 33% on average. The middle class paid an average of around 13%. Nonetheless, the economy didn't really take off until JFK's tax reforms. See this article:

Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Well, you can find some wackos anywhere, but I would not consider this philosphy any type of a movement nor a party goal.

Gary, perhaps in your zeal you don't realize, that I feel your in some cases putting words in my (and others) mouth or implying that I must support a particular position, then you attack that position.

I think you are correct Dave, though I think there may be a predisposition to assume what position I am taking as well. As I have said, there are some areas I think along liberal lines, but there are others that I look at in a very conservative nature, sometimes perhaps putting me to the right of the tea party

For example I do not believe if you were born of illegal immigrants or even no citizens that you should be considered a US citizen just because you were born in the US. At least one of your parents must be a US citizen IMO. That loose way of acquiring citizenship was valuable when we needed manpower and our economy was rapidly expanding. The time for that need is gone.

It should be pointed out that nobody pays the marginal rate.

There are ways of avoiding it, but some indeed will pay that top rate.

The real rate paid is much lower because of deductions and loop holes.

There were loopholes, but their still are, the constant is a much higher top end fed tax rate.

The capital gains tax was real low and the tax on interest income was actually 0% in practice. The real % income tax paid by very top income earners was only around 33% on average.

Interesting. I'd like to run some numbers and see what I come up with. I would think that the tax burden though was born more by the upper end than it is now. While there are loopholes, deductions, and differences such as in capital gains, I can't see those making up for the higher Fed rate. As I said, we still have loopholes now, so we don't pay on our true income but the adjusted income after the deductions and loopholes.

What he essentially did was left the top marginal rate high so a wealthy income earner would have to pay it if they did not re-invest their earnings in the private sector. (

Not a bad idea, wish we would use it today. I read a study on how much money makes it back into the economy, looking at average wage earners, wealthy, the government, etc. It was evaluated in many ways, but the least cost effective method was money left in the hands of the wealthy, as it is more stagnant and does not get back into the economy. This top bracket of 90% really would motivate those top earners not to leave their money stagnant.

but the least cost effective method was money left in the hands of the wealthy, as it is more stagnant and does not get back into the economy.

But it is their money. They earned it. It does not belong to the collective. It is immoral to confiscate it.

The free market is always the most efficient distributor of resources and capital. One of the reasons the economy under Ike was sluggish despite the incentives to re-invest, was the high corporate rates. Kennedy's first tax reform was to dramatically slash the corporate rates as early as 1962.

Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

But it is their money. They earned it. It does not belong to the collective. It is immoral to confiscate it.

There are a lot of things that could be considered immoral. At looks as though you think a progressive tax scale is immoral. Lets look at it another way - is it immoral for someone because they can fund to a handful of politicians to have the laws re written in a way that benefits him? I think that is definitely immoral if you are parading your government as a free democracy, because issues should be decided by votes, not by who's pockets are the deepest.

Using your line of thinking, it is also immoral for me to pay property tax on my home because I have no children and the tax goes to the school district. I could go on and on about things that are immoral according to the standards you set.

I can also come up with a very logical explanation why someone who has much more money should pay much more in taxes. Let us look at persons A and B. Person A owns a factory, Person B works in it. Person a takes advantage of public highways to ship his manufactured goods. Person B does not. Should person A pay more for the building and maintenance of these roads? Most certainly, if the desire is to be moral and fair.

Person A also benefits more from a stable political system. If the factory were to be destroyed in civil unrest or the roads impassable due to banditry, Person A would not be seeing his profits. Person B does not make much money, so replacing his job is not hard, he just has to find another factory or a different type of job. But person A cannot replace his factory. You can say insurance would cover it, but one of the exclusions is civil unrest.

So yes, there are reason why it is fair and moral for a bigger earner to may more in taxes. Exactly how much more is the debatable issue.

I have wrote in another thread that I think all taxes are fundamentally immoral, but some taxes are necessary.

However, I do feel that people (especially those with means) have a moral obligation to help the poor and the needy, the sick and the inflicted, and the helpless. I just think it should mostly be voluntary, rather than compelled. Those with the means should also put their money to work, creating good jobs, education, and economic growth for society. If the Gov takes most of it away then they can not do that if they would choose to do so.

The ironic thing about JFK is that, although he had a D behind his name in many ways he governed as a fiscal conservative. On the other hand JFK's opponent Richard Nixon had a R behind his name and in many ways he governed as a progressive.

Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

However, I do feel that people (especially those with means) have a moral obligation to help the poor and the needy, the sick and the inflicted, and the helpless. I just think it should mostly be voluntary, rather than compelled.

Ain't gonna happen. There will be a few that try to help, but most will not. The only way to see that this happens is to enforce it. The infirm, poor and needy had it much worse off prior to government enforcement. Not that I expect them too, it's like you can't get mad at a viper for being a viper.

Carnegie did good works, but that was after he sold his company and "saw god" as it were.

This reminds me of a study of the 10 commandments, in particular the 8th, though shall not steal. The interesting part was that it was explained using old Jewish mores of the time instead of 21st century mores. If one was hungry, one could go to your neighbors lands and take enough food for you family. I forgot where this is mentioned or the specs, but it sheds some light upon the commandments. going to your neighbors lands and taking only enough food for your family, if you had no food, was not considered stealing.

It also showed there were mores in the Jewish community to provide for the poor and needy. How well they were obeyed I don't know, but these mores are not part of our current society.

Dave Saxton wrote:But it is their money. They earned it. It does not belong to the collective. It is immoral to confiscate it.

The free market is always the most efficient distributor of resources and capital. One of the reasons the economy under Ike was sluggish despite the incentives to re-invest, was the high corporate rates. Kennedy's first tax reform was to dramatically slash the corporate rates as early as 1962.

We no longer have a free market, at least not with respect to the largest corporations. We have monopolies.

GaryT wrote -Re Cloward-Pivens"Well, you can find some wackos anywhere, but I would not consider this philosphy any type of a movement nor a party goal."

Wackos? LOL. That is an easy way to shunt aside an inconvenient issue instead of looking too closely at their scheme in comparison to the gigantic expansion and sky-rocketing costs of the American welfare state. You do not consider it "any type of movement" or "party goal"? I'll take that as an unsupported assumption on your part.l